Age based rule to be implemented

[mthoopsfan]

Since you’ve been saying it for several years, I would assume it’s been soon by now.

I don’t recall saying falling behind in the past. I have been saying the Cats will need to adjust. And with the 5th year rule, there will be more pressure to adjust. Try to read and comprehend better.

 

[argh!]

Google glass was not something huge, in my mind. It was a blip. I never even heard of it until recently. I never saw the hype. I don't understand crypto. Never paid much attention to it.

Not that much was ever invested in Google glass. It is truly incredible.

Skepticism is fine, but AI is already overwhelmingly big and important and growing.

AI, on the other hand: "Total global spending on AI is projected to reach $2.52 trillion to $2.59 trillion, representing over 40% of all global IT spending.

1.​

Unlike previous tech booms that focused on software development, the current surge is dominated by physical hardware, computing power, and energy. According to recent 2026 data from firms like Gartner:

• AI Infrastructure ($1.37 Trillion): This is the largest single slice of the pie. It includes specialized AI data centers, high-end GPU clusters (which drove Nvidia past a $5 trillion market cap), and network fabric.
• Big Tech Capital Expenditure: Just four "hyperscalers"—Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta—have collectively budgeted between $660 billion and $720 billion for capital expenditures, directed almost entirely at AI data centers and infrastructure. For scale, Amazon alone has targeted roughly $200 billion in AI investments, while Alphabet is raising $80 billion in fresh cash to fuel a planned $190 billion spend.
• Semiconductor Mega-Projects: To keep pace with chip demand, massive regional initiatives are underway. For instance, Samsung and SK Hynix announced a joint $518 billion investment to build a massive new computer chipmaking hub in South Korea.

2. Software, Models, and Services​

While infrastructure eats up nearly half of the capital, the remaining investment is split across deployment:

• AI Software & GenAI Models (~$450–$480 Billion): Enterprise software and the training of foundational models are expanding rapidly, with generative AI model spending seeing an 80% year-over-year growth rate.
• AI Consulting and Services (~$585 Billion): Because most companies lack internal machine learning expertise, hundreds of billions are flowing to enterprise consulting firms (like PwC, Deloitte, and Accenture) to help bridge the skills gap and deploy AI into existing corporate workflows.

3. Long-Term Forecasts: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Horizon​

Looking further down the road, the numbers become even more exponential. Goldman Sachs estimates that tech companies will spend a cumulative $7.6 trillion through 2031 just to build and power the thousands of new data centers required to keep up with agentic workflows and advanced AI systems." Gemini.

here's an interesting opinion on ai, from the nytimes. worth the read, as the author makes some interesting points, such as that if a process is easily automated, it's already been automated. it also makes the point that ai makes decisions based on plausibility, not reasoning. etc, etc... it's a good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opinion/ai-agents-steal-jobs-employment.html

 

[ResilientGriz]

If you don't think AI will have much of an impact, then you aren't using it correctly.

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

I know, it’s kind of weird to get my head around, too. Take the transitional implementation years out of it. Under the old system, players had 4 years of playing time. Now, they have 5 years of playing time.

In a perfect distribution example for simplicity, that means 25% of the roster used to leave each year. Now, only 20% of the roster leaves each year. It decreases yearly roster turnover no matter how you look at it, which means coaches simply have less need to sign as many high school seniors each year.

Because teams are bound by a roster cap, they can't just expand the team to hoard both groups. It is a zero-sum choice. Furthermore, without traditional redshirts or medical waivers, high school seniors who are signed will be on the playing clock immediately. That means there is less incentive to take on high school "projects" because you waste a valuable year of eligibility just developing them.

Now, couple it with the portal. At the top levels of CFB, does a coach choose a group of developed 22-year-olds or 18-year-olds fresh from HS to fill that smaller 20% hole? Obviously the former. This creates a trickle-down roster displacement where the 18-year-olds have to go somewhere lower. The recruits who would’ve gone to Alabama are displaced down to Boise, and the ones who would’ve gone to Boise are pushed down to the FCS (rough examples).

Sounds like the final nail in establishing a farm league system.

 

[mthoopsfan]

CDA, while I had already warmed up to your prior idea, of encouraging top high school recruits to come to UM for a few years, and then telling them or expecting them to move up. With the 5th year rule, I think your idea is even better than it was before. I didn't think much of your idea when you first proposed it, although as time went on, I realized that it had more potential than I had thought initially. There aren't that many top high school guys that can play immediately at a good FBS school. They just aren't developed or mature enough, or not yet good enough. But they can play at our level. With 5 years to play, they don't have to redshirt at a big FBS schools (can play for us right away for a couple years), develop and prove themselves, and then move up and get some big bucks. Football is now more like a professional league, or set of leagues. Even Hauck was adapting a bit is my impression, and he would have had to adapt more. I'm not saying I like this, but it's become the way of the world.

 

[mthoopsfan]

here's an interesting opinion on ai, from the nytimes. worth the read, as the author makes some interesting points, such as that if a process is easily automated, it's already been automated. it also makes the point that ai makes decisions based on plausibility, not reasoning. etc, etc... it's a good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opinion/ai-agents-steal-jobs-employment.html

I enjoyed the article, but it is full of straw man arguments. I've never thought AI was going to take over the world or run everyone out of jobs. It's taking some or many jobs, and it will take more, but it's also creating efficiency and more jobs and making things move faster. It's great for some things, and less great or not good for others. I like and use AI, and see its uses, in basic and easier things. It's very useful for many things on egriz, because it's research and summaries are way better and faster than the analysis and research of most posters. I can see how AI may not help or may not work, in some of the cited examples of problems areas, like with airlines and ordering fast-food. I wonder of some of the over-hyping is coming from writers of articles like this, as opposed to people leading AI companies.

 

[RP24]

My thoughts on the early enrollees within the 5in5 rule were correct. Program philosophy on it is changing now. Starts with the 28 class. Too late to have the 27 class take summer courses to graduate early.
Doesn't matter who does or does not believe it helps, makes sense, or matters within the rule scope. UM does and is altering their approach.

Great excuse for BK to move the program into modern recruiting and modern roster building.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

My thoughts on the early enrollees within the 5in5 rule were correct. Program philosophy on it is changing now. Starts with the 28 class. Too late to have the 27 class take summer courses to graduate early.
Doesn't matter who does or does not believe it helps, makes sense, or matters within the rule scope. UM does and is altering their approach.

Great excuse for BK to move the program into modern recruiting and modern roster building.

Any thoughts on the rare case where the kid’s clock starts in Jan of year one instead of when he would’ve enrolled in the fall? Wouldn’t year five have the clock potentially run out before the final bowls are played? Just have the early guys enroll later in Jan probably? That’s if it’s even an issue, which idk.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Any thoughts on the rare case where the kid’s clock starts in Jan of year one instead of when he would’ve enrolled in the fall? Wouldn’t year five have the clock potentially run out before the final bowls are played? Just have the early guys enroll later in Jan probably? That’s if it’s even an issue, which idk.

I doubt that that would be a problem. I think the rule is meant to be 5 consecutive full seasons, regardless of what the wording may say now.